Certain words have legal definitions. One of those words in the Fourteenth Amendment has not yet been mentioned (to my knowledge) in the debate over birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n
On Monday, The Federalist<\/a> reported:<\/p>\n This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments<\/a> in Trump v. Barbara<\/em>, the most consequential immigration case in decades. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of a Honduran national challenging President Trump\u2019s executive order<\/a> denying citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants and tourists with temporary visas. The question posed was whether the 14th Amendment\u2019s Citizenship Clause guarantees automatic citizenship to every child born on American soil, no matter who the parents are or why they are in the United States.<\/strong><\/p>\n The article notes:<\/p>\n Much of the debate has focused on whether a child is \u201csubject to the jurisdiction\u201d of the United States. But one word in the Citizenship Clause has largely escaped scrutiny: reside.<\/strong><\/p>\n Here is the clause in full:<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Perhaps because it comes at the end, it has been treated as an afterthought, but careful reading shows how central the term \u201creside\u201d is. The clause does not say \u201care born,\u201d \u201care physically present,\u201d or \u201cpass through on a tourist visa.\u201d Citizenship is granted only to those who actually \u201creside,\u201d establishing a precondition for the clause\u2019s application, with \u201creside\u201d carrying a consistent legal meaning across many areas of American law, including taxes, jury duty, voting, school enrollment, in-state tuition, and family law. It refers to an established, settled presence, in other words, a place where you actually live.<\/strong><\/p>\n The article concludes:<\/p>\n Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will almost certainly follow the text. They have the intellectual consistency to apply the plain meaning of the clause, certainly with respect to birth tourists who do not \u201creside\u201d in the United States, and likely to illegal immigrants as well.<\/strong><\/p>\n The remaining four, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, are in play, and no matter how much one tries to read the tea leaves, we do not know what they will do.<\/strong><\/p>\n Whatever the outcome, at a minimum, the court should acknowledge that birth tourism is not covered by the 14th Amendment. All it takes is reading one sentence to the end and applying a word everyone understands. If the court cannot hold that line, if five justices cannot agree that a tourist is not a resident, then the words of the Constitution mean nothing.<\/strong><\/p>\n The outcome of this case will play a major role in determining what our country looks like in eighteen years. Many of the babies that are American citizens because of Chinese birth tourism will be coming to America to establish their right to vote and voting per their instructions from the Chinese Communist part. That does not bode well.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Certain words have legal definitions. One of those words in the Fourteenth Amendment has not yet been mentioned (to my knowledge) in the debate over birthright citizenship. On Monday, The Federalist reported: This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments … Continue reading